incubator-esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
Date Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:34:07 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 5:15:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> 
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin 
> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 5:03:12 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> >
> >> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 4:35:25 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> >> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> >> >> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> >> Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:00:33 PM
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Copyright issue (ESME-47)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided
and then see 
> if
> >> you
> >> >> >> want to reconsider your veto....
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't
think there are
> >> >> >> >> vetos - we should have explicitely specified that
this is a majority
> >> >> >> >> vote.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with
your -1s, or just
> >> >> >> >> express your disagreement with the majority?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > i consider making claims about third party copyright
ownership rather
> >> >> >> > than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from
a legal
> >> >> >> > perspective
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review
(my exam is
> >> >> >> > tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time
in the
> >> >> >> > afternoon)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please
raise on the
> >> >> >> > legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team
folks feel
> >> >> >> > that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> BTW Eben Moglen has an excellent article on how to do this
right
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Here you've gone completely batshit, as I'm quite certain Eben
Moglen 
> has
> >> >> > never written about this precise issue.
> >> >>
> >> >> yes, i'm also sure that Eben Moglen has never written on the matter
of
> >> >> whether Esme is right in using that particular phrase
> >> >>
> >> >> he has written on the subject of the right way to include a copyright
> >> >> notice in a derivative work under a different collective copyright
and
> >> >> license as illustrated by a bsd->gpl example. (when i have time
i'll
> >> >> dig out the link but you'll find it if you google.)
> >> >
> >> > As I'm fairly certain you learned about that article's existence from me
> >> > regarding Thrift lacking ICLAs, I won't bother digging it up and rereading
> >> > it because I'm 100% certain it has nothing to do with the situation at

> hand.
> >> >
> >> > This is not about derivative works, third party licensing, or collective
> >> > copyright.  It's about work contributed to Apache under an ICLA littered
> >> > with onerous copyright notices in the source.  The project would very much
> >> > like to dispense with this issue by someone who is not the copyright holder
> >> > (since *that* committer resigned over this issue), moving the notices to
a
> >> single
> >> > line in the NOTICE file.  They are currently blocked from doing that 
> because
> >> > the legal team's policy doesn't cover that act.  Fix that and everyone
goes
> >> > away happy.
> >> >
> >> > What that will entail is some attorney presenting to the legal team an
> >> > assessment of the legal risks the org assumes by writing that into the

> policy.
> >> > Once it has been explained, the legal team can vote to accept the risk
> >> > and adopt the policy.  It will take lots of time and energy, and since
you
> >> > are so concerned about the wrong thing taking place in the interim, perhaps
> >> > you can be the one to champion this issue for the project while they wait
> >> > for you to carry out what the rest of the legal team seems relatively
> >> > unconcerned about.
> >>
> >> the copyright notices in the file are factually incorrect. this should
> >> be addressed.
> >
> > How so? Nobody's touched them except for the committer who put them there.
> >
> >> Eben Moglen's article gives advice on the right way to
> >> deal with this. the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for
> >> that ATM.
> >
> > Not by a long shot, because his article deals with the case of mixed open 
> source
> > licenses.
> 
> he deals with the problem of factually accurate statements about
> copyright as part of his treatment of that subject

I have no fucking idea what you are harping on, perhaps it is the word "portions"
that has your panties in a bunch.  That's all that's being proposed in this vote,
adding the word "portions" to a preexisting copyright statement.  I fail to see
the innacuracy of that word in the context of the ASF unless you are worried
about the case where the word "portions" should be interpreted as "everything".

FWIW, here is the SFLC article in question: 

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html

I'd be happy to read the article to you someday since it's clear you haven't,
I will just point out that the instructions there about copyright notices
are there because the open source license in question demands for them to be
preserved. The ICLA is not in that category, period.


> 
> > The agreement here is the CLA, not the Apache License or some other
> > open source license.
> 
> my point has nothing to do with that: my point is that the statement
> is not correct and moreover is dangerous

The "portions" addition?  Incorrect? Dangerous? Really?  I wonder how it
esapeded your peers as well as the attorneys that read legal-discuss for
content.

> >> the rest is politics and i don't have the cycles for that ATM.
> >
> > Well since I've answered your issues, I'd like to ask that you retract your 
> veto.,
> 
> my veto is valid since you missed entirely my point and have failed to
> address it

So I've tried again.  This time I hope my answers are satisfactory.



      

Mime
View raw message